[Thud]

A statute is not the Constitution. Those are quite different things. Congress frequently enacts laws which the courts overturn as unconstitutional.

This particular law is right on the line between executive and congressional separation of powers, so political turf disputes could get involved. That is why the federal courts devised the “Political Question” test for voluntary abstention by them from assuming jurisdiction over an issue.

This is an instance, IMO, where Trump could get both Congress and the federal judiciary to back off by threatening them with an Article V Constitutional Convention to impose term limits on both.

We’ll see how this works out.

[Tammy8]

Yes I understand what you are saying, but that is what they are referring to when they mention 1st Amendment and illegal immigration. You and I know the 1st Amendment says no such thing.

[Tammy8]

Don’t know if you saw this but this is how they make the connection to the 1st Amendment:

http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The-First-Amendment-after-Reno-v.-American-Arab-Anti-Discrimination-Committee-A-Different-Bill-of-Rights-for-Aliens.pdf